Conquer Club

"President-Elect" Joe Biden has come out with a new proposal to keep guns out of the hands of poor people.

Under the proposal, guns will remain perfectly legal, however, will be subject to a small tax set low enough that it will not be a burden to anyone except the poor.

It's simply a step for gun control. He said taxes wouldn't increase for anyone making less than $400M a year. Perhaps he meant INCOME TAX, not taxes.

Also, the wording is "semi automatic rifles". Does that include .22 rifles? Deer rifles?

I'd owe over 5 grand. Let me know where to mail that.

Right. f*ck you Sloppy Joe. Come here and collect it.....

Paying a tax on something you own seems wrong... it’s like a retroactive tax.

I can see a tax for new purchases maybe... but an annual tax of $200 for something you own?

we do have excise tax for cars... but supposedly this is to pay for road maintenance, so there’s some logic.

If you want to charge a fee for using guns it should be for hunting license per person... not per gun

Taxing bullets would be more effective

$200 per gun? Come on man. That's obscene and I buy booze in Canada so I'm used to too many taxes that are way too high.

Never suggest a tax Red. At least make them figure it out on their own.

The two worst parts are, whom ever decides what an assault rifle is tends to use flawed criteria, and for me the worse one is, honest people get taxed while some piece of trash that should not even have firearms, has them in secret and does not.

2dimes wrote:$200 per gun? Come on man. That's obscene and I buy booze in Canada so I'm used to too many taxes that are way too high.

Never suggest a tax Red. At least make them figure it out on their own.

The two worst parts are, whom ever decides what an assault rifle is tends to use flawed criteria, and for me the worse one is, honest people get taxed while some piece of trash that should not even have firearms, has them in secret and does not.

That’s the part that bugs me.

I’m betting the bullet on the tax is not detailed properly and it’s not an annual tax on ownership, but a tax on new purchases.

I don’t see how they could legally retroactively tax like that and I don’t see how they could even enforce it if they did try to do that.

$200/per gun per year?

No way... it must be $200 on purchase... like a sales tax. That is enforceable.
It might be high... IDK how much those kinda guns cost... but it’s enforceable.

jimboston wrote:

2dimes wrote:$200 per gun? Come on man. That's obscene and I buy booze in Canada so I'm used to too many taxes that are way too high.

Never suggest a tax Red. At least make them figure it out on their own.

The two worst parts are, whom ever decides what an assault rifle is tends to use flawed criteria, and for me the worse one is, honest people get taxed while some piece of trash that should not even have firearms, has them in secret and does not.

That’s the part that bugs me.

I’m betting the bullet on the tax is not detailed properly and it’s not an annual tax on ownership, but a tax on new purchases.

I don’t see how they could legally retroactively tax like that and I don’t see how they could even enforce it if they did try to do that.

$200/per gun per year?

No way... it must be $200 on purchase... like a sales tax. That is enforceable.
It might be high... IDK how much those kinda guns cost... but it’s enforceable.

No - the tax takes effect if you refuse to surrender your firearms to the Biden Regime and is charged annually. If you forget to pay the $200 it's a 10 year prison sentence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2 ... utType=amp

So this has the added benefit of keeping poor people off the streets and doing productive things like building transportation infrastructure for $2/hour. Which is good because I need more places to charge my Tesla out in the provinces. Go Joe!

saxitoxin wrote:

jimboston wrote:

2dimes wrote:$200 per gun? Come on man. That's obscene and I buy booze in Canada so I'm used to too many taxes that are way too high.

Never suggest a tax Red. At least make them figure it out on their own.

The two worst parts are, whom ever decides what an assault rifle is tends to use flawed criteria, and for me the worse one is, honest people get taxed while some piece of trash that should not even have firearms, has them in secret and does not.

That’s the part that bugs me.

I’m betting the bullet on the tax is not detailed properly and it’s not an annual tax on ownership, but a tax on new purchases.

I don’t see how they could legally retroactively tax like that and I don’t see how they could even enforce it if they did try to do that.

$200/per gun per year?

No way... it must be $200 on purchase... like a sales tax. That is enforceable.
It might be high... IDK how much those kinda guns cost... but it’s enforceable.

No - the tax takes effect if you refuse to surrender your firearms to the Biden Regime and is charged annually. If you forget to pay the $200 it's a 10 year prison sentence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2 ... utType=amp

So this has the added benefit of keeping poor people off the streets and doing productive things like building transportation infrastructure for $2/hour. Which is good because I need more places to charge my Tesla out in the provinces. Go Joe!

Wrong...

“Joe Biden would force semiautomatic rifle owners to either participate in a gun buyback program, or register their firearm under the National Firearms Act, which requires the payment of a $200 tax. This would extend to AR-15s and other common household rifles. Those who do not comply would face up to 10 years in federal prison, and a potential $10,000 fine.”

https://www.atr.org/biden-impose-200-gun-tax

There’s nothing to indicate it’s an annual fee. Seems like a one time fee.

That said...
1) I oppose it.
2) It’s not gonna pass. He’s asking for more than he wants and more than he expects to get.
Standard negotiating tactic... with the added benefit of being able to say to extreme gun-control activists that he ‘tried’.

If he gets anything like this it’ll be registration required plus a fee capped at much lower per household/per person figure.

Koolback, let’s solve this...
You ok with registration and a $10 per gun fee capped at $100 per person?

jimboston wrote:You ok with registration and a $10 per gun fee capped at $100 per person?

I counter your offer with no registration and a $0 per gun fee capped at $0 per person.

saxitoxin wrote:

jimboston wrote:You ok with registration and a $10 per gun fee capped at $100 per person?

I counter your offer with no registration and a $0 per gun fee capped at $0 per person.

I was talking to Koolback.

I know you really don’t give a flying f*ck about this issue... you only care* about it as a political issue.

*by care about it I mean your current CC persona cares about it. I secretly suspect you to be a retired professor who gets his jollies pretending to be someone else on various websites.

The problem with registration is you never know what new taxes or regulations the future rulers will come up with.

As you said, retroactive tax is Bologna.

"Oh you have had this for years, too bad, pay us."
"We changed our mind, you can't have that anymore. Gimme gimme."

Yo JB...I am NOT NOT NOT ok with the "registration". Absolutely not. I got my first gun 50 years ago and have collected ever since. About half I've gone through the required background / anal cavity check (the ones I've purchased in the last 25 years, including the six I bought in the last month ).

They have records of me buying guns. I dont believe they keep a record of the actual weapon associated with each check? I've never been able to get a solid answer on that.

Anyway, on new purchases, adding a $10 charge to fund positive programs in managing lawful gun owners / programs? Absolutely. Adding a "registration" to the already exhaustive process? Sure.

Expecting me to voluntarily fill out a report on all my guns? AND as a bonus, fucking pay AGAIN for the privilege? AND allow them a list of all my semi automatic weapons, so when fuck-off-joe enacts totalitarian gun control, the gestapo can roll up to my door with a fucking list??? f*ck. TO. THE. NO.

This is where I jump up and down shouting Cold Dead Fingers!!!

Really, though. The wording says semi-auto. We have two "assault" style weapons and 8 mags. That's 2 grand in tax. We have semi auto deer rifles that are FAR more dangerous and capable than an AR but they don't LOOK like assault rifles. Are those and their mags taxed? I have a shit ton of semi auto shotguns, pistols and other rifles. Taxed?

Yeah, they ain't getting SHIT from me voluntarily and I guar-un-tee 95% of honest, law abiding gun owners are gonna say the same. Fuckers

Yeah, the Canadian gov just banned a bunch more firearms that look like the AR-15.

The list is comical. Some of the stuff that became a restricted or even a banned weapon, is stuff that is as you described. FAR less capable. Yet, it looks scary in pictures of a rapper holding it.

Panic, ban it!

My buddies and I figure they should ban all the ileagal fire arms that keep showing up.

I can't go to Cabellas and buy anything but could fairly easily get something more expensive that should not even be in the county. I hardly go outside anymore other than to hunt for take out, so it would take longer to find someone but they are out there. Some are probably selling the newly banned stuff.

Trudeau is just pandering to his base, mostly urban women who have never fired a gun and would prefer to ban all of them. Everybody knows the new ban is just an election promise being given out to keep the base loyal.

99% of the illegal guns come from south of the border. The most useful thing we can do to stop gun crime is to keep that border closed. Sadly, I think the new vaccines are going to get the border re-opened.

Fukkin 'murikans

Yo Duk of Death...wanna buy a "belt"

Dukasaur wrote:..urban women who have never fired a gun and would prefer to ban all of them.

One of my best buddys and his family moved to Forget Saskatchewan. No joke. I finally get out to visit one time. In conversation it comes up that there are a family of foxes hanging around town that cleaned out a neighbors hen house. I suggest the obvious and his wife and mother in law, whom you describe object to my plan.

How did I go from being 2dimes to actually conversing here?

KoolBak wrote:Fukkin 'murikans

Yo Duk of Death...wanna buy a "belt"

It's funny, I almost was a part of the illegal gun supply chain.

My father had a lot of guns. All of them were bought at the Canada Customs auctions at the Peace Bridge. Americans on vacation would come over the border brandishing their guns, which even back then were illegal to transport over the border. Canada Customs would seize them. Every six months the Customs people held an auction of seized contraband. Nowadays of course guns wouldn't be included, but back then they were. So every six months my father would go down to the Peace Bridge and buy himself a new toy.

I know there's responsible gun owners that keep their guns under lock and key and take out the magazines and all that stuff. My father wasn't one of those. The guns were mostly loaded all the time, and they were all around the house in various locations. Mostly they were "hidden" but not very well. An experienced burglar would have found them all in 10 minutes. Well, except for the muzzle-loader up in the rafters. Lol, the LEAST dangerous gun was the one that was hidden the best. Maybe because it was a historical artifact and worth a lot of money.

I was 13 when I started running away from home on a regular basis. Usually when I'd run away I'd take one or two handguns with me for "self-defense". And then I came up with the clever idea I could sell one and make a lot of money. I was asking $100. Yeah, you can laugh. But for a teenager on the streets in the mid-Seventies a hundred dollars sounded like an awful lot of money.

Luckily all the people I knew were also poor and nobody ever came up with the hundred bucks. But for that, I could have been part of the criminal supply chain. Someone could have been killed with a gun I stole from my father and I would have been at least partially culpable.

Go ahead, tell me I was an irresponsible asshole. I suppose I was, but I was just a teenager on the streets, confused and scared and cold and hungry.

KoolBak wrote:Yo JB...I am NOT NOT NOT ok with the "registration". Absolutely not. I got my first gun 50 years ago and have collected ever since. About half I've gone through the required background / anal cavity check (the ones I've purchased in the last 25 years, including the six I bought in the last month ).

They have records of me buying guns. I dont believe they keep a record of the actual weapon associated with each check? I've never been able to get a solid answer on that.

Anyway, on new purchases, adding a $10 charge to fund positive programs in managing lawful gun owners / programs? Absolutely. Adding a "registration" to the already exhaustive process? Sure.

Expecting me to voluntarily fill out a report on all my guns? AND as a bonus, fucking pay AGAIN for the privilege? AND allow them a list of all my semi automatic weapons, so when fuck-off-joe enacts totalitarian gun control, the gestapo can roll up to my door with a fucking list??? f*ck. TO. THE. NO.

This is where I jump up and down shouting Cold Dead Fingers!!!

Really, though. The wording says semi-auto. We have two "assault" style weapons and 8 mags. That's 2 grand in tax. We have semi auto deer rifles that are FAR more dangerous and capable than an AR but they don't LOOK like assault rifles. Are those and their mags taxed? I have a shit ton of semi auto shotguns, pistols and other rifles. Taxed?

Yeah, they ain't getting SHIT from me voluntarily and I guar-un-tee 95% of honest, law abiding gun owners are gonna say the same. Fuckers

It’s good to hear and speak with people who have different views. Especially when you can have a reasonable and respectful conversation.

I definitely understand the retroactive part of the mandate. In general I don’t think the gov’t should change the rules on things you already own... or make you pay for things you already possess. It feels wrong.

That said, the “Grandfathered In” clause can’t be applied universally. In the mid 1800’s I don’t think that’s be a valid argument to make with slavery. “Hey I’ve owned this human for years, you can’t just change the rules on me now!”. Or today it wouldn’t be a good argument for a business that’s polluted for years to argue that they’ve “Done it that way forever.”. Common sense is a factor.

I’m not saying those example are 100% analogous with guns... they aren’t. I respect the FACT that the vast majority of gun owners are great citizens and not crazy or criminal. The language of the Left on this is very unhelpful, and many gun-control advocates have no interest in listening to the legitimate voices of gun owners.

Actually you can bring most of your legal fire arms including restricted/handguns to Canada as long as you have the permits.

You can not carry, and may only use the handguns at certain indoor club ranges but you could cross the border with them. You also need to report the route and approximate time you wish to move a handgun from one known secure location to another. The most common example being, between your locked storage container at home to the gun club or back.

Once you get far enough up north if you really like paper work, you may be able to get permission to carry but that is basically another pretty long story.

Having said all that I will complain again about them seizing my kids air soft pistols at the border between BC and Montana. Had to buy them new ones for more money once we got home. A reward for being honest.

So they might also impound your perfectly legal weapons requiring you or your legal team to have to go to court...

Yeah, it's better to just carry on and spread this rumour.

...which even back then were illegal to transport over the boarder.

Well, I wouldn't make shit up. I know Customs had tons of confiscated firearms for sale in those days. So if they were legal with permits, presumably the former owners didn't bother with permits.

jimboston wrote:It’s good to hear and speak with people who have different views. Especially when you can have a reasonable and respectful conversation.

thank you

Dukasaur wrote:Well, I wouldn't make shit up. I know Customs had tons of confiscated firearms for sale in those days. So if they were legal with permits, presumably the former owners didn't bother with permits.

quit making shit up, duk...

I doubt you are the one who made that up.

Further to what I wrote about the border at BC...
If you show up at a more reasonable border crossing and don't have paperwork I believe Canada customs will impound your legal fire arm because, you just attempted to bring it here without a permit.

At that point I suspect going home and buying a replacement is much easier than getting your impounded gun back, now days they probably just destroy most of them after.

I think the saying is, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

yeah, i've heard of that.